Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Cheney Shoots Ducks (and a person) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (406)	2/15/2006 3:07:42 PM
From: worksinjammies	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1307

I would be very interested in discussing moderate positions. What precisely were you thinking of? I think this is the nature of the problem; it is difficult to speak of a position "in the middle" as it, by it's nature, would require taking on the strength of the two opposing views, and moving past their weaknesses. There is no organized "middle" to speak of, but it is my opinion that nearly all Americans (the vast majority anyway) would characterize themselves as true moderates when called to task. The problem with our two party system, the stench of corruption lies on both sides of the isle. It is money that drives politics, and the money flows to the extremes. It does not flow to a position of moderation, as this does not help the causes of the special interests. Politicians in general, know the American public (the vast majority of moderates) are passive or disillusioned; therefore, they only need to pander to the needs of special interests. While they campaign on buzz words, the public votes on pointless sound bites and BS; the system goes on status quo. All the players, Democrats and Republicans, get the spoils of being members in the political arena...and those spoils are sweet. The system will not change because while we, the American Public, fight on picking a "side" nothing really ever changes. The only significant change would have to be initiated by public unrest or revolution, neither of which would happen in our current age. I know this is quite a generalization, but this is my feeling as to why our current system is flawed; therefore, it is difficult, if not pointless, to talk about a true moderate position. Such a position is merely hypothetical in our current two party system. It's quite a shame, actually. All I ever hope for is a true mix of moderate Democrats and moderate Republican that can work together in a semi nonpartisan way to serve the needs of all effectively. A true balanced (egalitarian?) system. If there was a way to put money behind it, or better yet, true campaign finance reform, we might see better days. I am not holding my breath. Thanks for your response with substance. Regards, WIJ

To: one_less who wrote (406)	2/15/2006 3:26:19 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1307

A couple of moderate positions for you Gem. 1. accept supply side but dont allow tax cuts to create unsustainable deficits or reduce necessary spending. In other words be cautious but do not throw out the supply side baby with the bathwater. 2. Realism in fp. No more neocons but also no more left wing silliness. Lets argue the issue and most importantly reach bi-partisan agreement/consensus (60% is a good number) 3. Respect all religions but dont let one religion create your platform on social issues--evangelical for the right and extreme moral relativism for the left. Keep religion out of politics as much as possible. Just a few thoughts.